Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that output is 'one line at a time' and 'for voice', which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not cover return format, error handling, or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence redundantly restates the title with a double period, and the second is a long, comma-separated list of content types that is not front-loaded with the tool's action. The description could be much shorter and more action-oriented.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned and how it relates to sibling tools, but it does neither. While annotations and the input schema cover safety and parameters, the description remains incomplete for disambiguating this tool from get_reading and get_today.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so n, date, and reading are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The title is repeated verbatim as the first sentence, and the rest of the description lists Stoic content and app features rather than stating a specific action for get_card. It doesn't clarify whether this retrieves a card, a reading, or a plan, so it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_reading or get_today.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use get_card versus get_reading, get_today, or search_readings. The description mentions 'plans, search' but never indicates which conditions select this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.